[quote]ryanjm wrote:
^^^Which is kinda dumb seeing as if you ask enough people what their question is, you eventually get the questions you want to ask. So basically Brokaw is asking whatever he wants to ask.[/quote]
Ya think?
I hope there is a ringer in there that asks an unplanned question
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.[/quote]
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these debates.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.[/quote]
Which is why I’m now a Monarchist.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.[/quote]
ADHD rates are on the rise…it’s so crazy, it might just work!
(Probably not)
Maybe it’s because I’m autistic, but these guys are getting way into the personal space of the audience and it is creeping me out. I’m waiting for one of them to sit in someone’s lap.
Best question so far!!! Would we wait for UNSC approval before moving on Iran if they were to attack Israel.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
Which is why I’m now a Monarchist. [/quote]
Like the butterflies?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.[/quote]
As if deciding based only on what they hear in these debates is any better
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
As if deciding based only on what they hear in these debates is any better[/quote]
No better. Isn’t that what I just said? Yeah, it is.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
Which is why I’m now a Monarchist. [/quote]
That would now be Treasury Secretary Paulson, our new Monarch
Oooh boy if Israel gets attacked we better go save em!
Did Israel send troops to Afghanistan or Iraq? Noooooo.
Israel is worthless to the United States. Seriously, fuck Israel.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
As if deciding based only on what they hear in these debates is any better
No better. Isn’t that what I just said? Yeah, it is.[/quote]
I am agreeing and disagreeing with you — at the same time
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
Which is why I’m now a Monarchist.
Like the butterflies?[/quote]
Like Henry V.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Best question so far!!! Would we wait for UNSC approval before moving on Iran if they were to attack Israel.[/quote]
Oh boy oh yeah!!! Best question!
What is with people’s blind and unwavering dedication and loyalty to a country that does nothing for the United States?
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
As if deciding based only on what they hear in these debates is any better
No better. Isn’t that what I just said? Yeah, it is.
I am agreeing and disagreeing with you — at the same time[/quote]
What’s the disagreement? I’m saying neither voting solely on party lines without learning the candidates positions nor voting only based on these debates is an informed choice. What are you saying?
Did Cindy and Michelle have some girltalk on the phone last night and agree that Cindy would wear blue and Michelle red?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is absolutely pointless. You can’t discuss he weighty issues of foreign relations and military action in a frickin minute.
That’s why the average voter makes such an uninformed choice. Many vote along party lines. Others will decide based on little to nothing more than they hear in these these debates.
As if deciding based only on what they hear in these debates is any better
No better. Isn’t that what I just said? Yeah, it is.
I am agreeing and disagreeing with you — at the same time
What’s the disagreement? I’m saying neither voting solely on party lines without learning the candidates positions nor voting only based on these debates is an informed choice. What are you saying?
[/quote]
just being facetious
I misread what you wrote and wound up writing what you just wrote so we agree like you said in the previous post.
But I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Oooh boy if Israel gets attacked we better go save em!
Did Israel send troops to Afghanistan or Iraq? Noooooo.
Israel is worthless to the United States. Seriously, fuck Israel.[/quote]
Israel could not send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. They would mobilize every jihadist in the area to fight our allied efforts. Smartest thing they could do was stay out.
If they get bombed I say we back them up, because they are our ally and that’s what allies do.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Best question so far!!! Would we wait for UNSC approval before moving on Iran if they were to attack Israel.
Oh boy oh yeah!!! Best question!
What is with people’s blind and unwavering dedication and loyalty to a country that does nothing for the United States?[/quote]
It had nothing to do with Israel simpleton, it had to do with whether the UN would dictate our military policy. Go play with your Tinker Toys before you hurt yourself.